On 15/04/2013 drdeviousii wrote:>Are you all really arguing about a 18m high bit of obscure Bluies choss?> Lay off the green macca, paranoia isn't cool.

From what I have read, this may well seem to be the case as far as the physical entity (climb yet to be done), in this case is concerned, however what I perceive as the main thrust of the argument/s is the issue of bolting trad lines. ~> The arguments for/against are still the case, whether the route is a world class line or a heap of choss.

Any chance of keeping to the issues instead of making things personal drdev (and others)? ... because that aspect is irrelevant and tiresome to read for most who bother, if they have an interest in the issue/s at stake.
☺

I dont think I bolted a trad route, or Macca's route. I believe I bolted a new line that is in vogue with the other routes in the Binary Cave which most finish up at the obvious big ledge which 18 to 20 metres off the floor.

Hmm , not sure how you work that out - It's listed as a trad line that I am trying .. .
well my route is what is marked 43 to the '?' marked in 'White = existing climb, as listed . . .
and my highpoint is what was marked - the '?' marked in 'White = existing climb, as listed . . .
Current falling point end of blue pretty much, around the lip just starting headwall . . .
Not fall there, and then there is bomber gear at hand then standup for more bomber gear . . .
Pretty sure there will be some horizontals or something up higher, like on other parts of wall . . .
In fact from this angle it looks like it may only need 2 or 3 more good placements anyway. . .

So, Bundy, tell me, when you bolted the crack at the start of '43' you weren't thinking to yourself that it would be a big f@ck you to Macciza?

While you and Neil are around, I've been to Sublime Point a couple of times and I've got the following comments/questions:

* The roofy middle section of the crag is good and is a very worthwhile sport climbing area with some good routes, except for the absolutely and completely worthless routes squeezed in on the R hand side (28-33 on your photo).

* You've (Neil) made a mess of the Bentrovarto Wall by putting a lower-off 3/4s of the way up two sport routes (YVP etc) at no logical conclusion. Presumably you initially didn't think you could get up to the ledge, so just put an anchor at your highpoint so you could call them routes?

* The Sweet Dreams Wall, already crowded with routes and variant finishes, did not need a ring-bolted sport route squeezed right up the guts of it. Perhaps it's not the best time to talk about it as someone has just hurt themselves on it, but this is a slabby wall with a classic climb on it and the character of the wall is 'mixed' Blue Mountains climbing, i.e. gear and carrots. I reckon you were being provocative by putting that up.

* I'm a bit over indiscriminate bolting in the Blue Mountains and I would like people to have more restraint in putting up new routes and/or maintaining the character of existing crags. For example, I am greatly saddened that Piddington now has literally dozens of ring-bolts (obviously that's nothing to do with you, that's Mike Law). It's also depressing to hear that sport climbers can't even leave the one decent trad line for the trad climbers without bolting it (refer Rowan thread).

* After Perry's, The Point and now this, you'd think you guys would want to show some restraint.

The fact is, that I HAVE rapped down "thumbs out", and I wouldn't call it a trad LINE at all. Yes, PART of it goes easily on gear. Another part goes dangerously on gear. And the final part is just death on gear. The alternative is that the route stops before the logical conclusion (presumably at some anchor point part way up the wall when the gear runs out), which in itself is not really in line with trad ethics.

To the same extent that one can argue for or against bolting (or more specifically, showing discrimination with respect to WHEN to bolt), the same can be said for trad lines. There are lines that MIGHT go on trad, but that doesn't necessarily mean they SHOULD go on trad. To have a trad climb which either stops before any logical conclusion, or becomes an unprotectable death-route merely for the sake of satisfying someone's ego is about as anti-ethical as you can get (and very much in line with bolting where not necessary).

I like to use Birds Nest at Mt York as an example. Theoretically its a gear route, but the reality is that it's a free solo because the gear is so rubbish you might as well just leave it at the base of the climb. The climbing, however, is brilliant for the grade. Consequently, you have a line that could (theoretically) be done on gear, and WAS done on gear, but perhaps SHOULDN'T have been (though the argument is moot now, as it would be obscene to retrobolt it), because short of 20,000 newbies climbing it on top rope, it doesn't really get done by climbers who could really appreciate a climb at that grade on lead.

Nick Clow:

In response to your previous post (addressing the first 2 of your .dot points):

1. The routes at the right hand end of the crag are actually extremely popular, and have cleaned up quite nicely. Its also one of only 2 crags in the blue mountains where you can slab/face climb regardless of how wet it is. If anything, there's only 1 line there which I think is a bit of a squeeze job, I'd call the others very worthwhile.

2. Considering your comments about indiscriminate lines, it seems kind of strange that you would make this post. If anything, it could be argued that it's discriminate to place the anchors where the good climbing on the route itself ends before turning into either a pointless rope-ripping doddle, or at the other end of the spectrum to a disordinately hard pitch that is out of context with the rest of the climb. The history of climbing in the Blue Mountains and across Australia, for that matter, has routes following exactly this principle, many of which are regarded as megaclassics today.

On 15/04/2013 Nick Clow wrote:>* The roofy middle section of the crag is good and is a very worthwhile>sport climbing area with some good routes, except for the absolutely and>completely worthless routes squeezed in on the R hand side (28-33 on your>photo).

? These are not worthless routes. They have had heaps of ascents and by all accounts seem to be enjoyed by most people. For example the original sport route Thirty Three Years has had 26 ascents on thecrag.com with an average 'quality' rating of Very Good. I actually think the routes on the left side are the poorer ones.

>* You've (Neil) made a mess of the Bentrovarto Wall by putting a lower-off>3/4s of the way up two sport routes (YVP etc) at no logical conclusion.

Have you been on these routes? Have you tried the extensions?? All the extensions are open projects in the very high 20s if not 30s. They have been attempted by a fair few strong climbers without success. You are welcome to complete them and chop my lower anchors when you do them. The anchors finish on logical good jugs just before it goes super hard.

>Presumably you initially didn't think you could get up to the ledge, so>just put an anchor at your highpoint so you could call them routes?

No - I bolted the full routes, with the lower anchors at the same time.

>* The Sweet Dreams Wall, already crowded with routes and variant finishes,>did not need a ring-bolted sport route squeezed right up the guts of it.>Perhaps it's not the best time to talk about it as someone has just hurt>themselves on it, but this is a slabby wall with a classic climb on it>and the character of the wall is 'mixed' Blue Mountains climbing, i.e.>gear and carrots. I reckon you were being provocative by putting that up.

I was no being deliberately provocative - but I can see your point. The super easy section where my route crosses Sweet Dreams is very runout - I didn't want any of my new bolts to be anywhere near Sweet Dreams. I say repeat the route and get back to me about it. The lower pitch is very nice and sustained orange stuff in the low 22s and the upper pitchs (past Sweet Dreams) are really fun steep jugging.

I wonder - has anyone with a trad bent repeated the couple of full trad routes I have established at Sublime?

On 15/04/2013 Nick Clow wrote:>So, Bundy, tell me, when you bolted the crack at the start of '43' you>weren't thinking to yourself that it would be a big f@ck you to Macciza?

The only reason Macca claimed it as a "trad" line is because he learnt that I was going to bolt it. If it was a trad or even a possible aid line (different from solo) Im sure that Ewbank would have tried it or aided it as he did with other climbs in the area (Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down)

On 15/04/2013 ratherbeclimbinV9 wrote:>Pretty sure? - so you're working the line ground up?

Yeah I did not 'rap the line' or any such thing - first time down there I tried it from the ground . . .
Later, yes, inspected with aids to make sure it was still sane and to sort out gear needed etc - yeah I wimped out a bit . . .
Had short look straight up from '?' on one of these occasions when I actually had a belayer, the traverse right looked hopeful but not tried at the time
Was hoping to investigate it further with as little fore-knowledge as possible after getting the bottom but that will no longer be the case I suppose . . .

On 15/04/2013 PThomson wrote:>To the same extent that one can argue for or against bolting (or more>specifically, showing discrimination with respect to WHEN to bolt), the>same can be said for trad lines. There are lines that MIGHT go on trad,>but that doesn't necessarily mean they SHOULD go on trad. To have a trad>climb which either stops before any logical conclusion, or becomes an unprotectable>death-route merely for the sake of satisfying someone's ego is about as>anti-ethical as you can get (and very much in line with bolting where not>necessary).>
Sounds sensible, but it's all one way traffic, isn't it? Dangerous routes are becoming safer every day, not the other way round.........except that now they are, and you guys are going to have to suck on it.

The other problem you're having is that the only style of climbs which you seem to think are valid are safe sport routes and safe trad routes, and the arbiter of safety is you. Some people like doing dangerous shit. They like going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line. I'm not really one of these people, but I climb with a couple of them and know a couple more. Stop stealing from their smallish stash to continually expand your enormous pile of pussy routes!

>* You've (Neil) made a mess of the Bentrovarto Wall by putting a lower-off>3/4s of the way up two sport routes (YVP etc) at no logical conclusion.> Have you been on these routes? Have you tried the extensions??

No, I haven't because I exercise some degree of discrimination and taste about what I climb. If I can see something is a non- or compromised line or aesthetically-challenged, then I don't climb it. I wish bolters would exercise similar discrimination before bolting 'routes'. The logical problem on that lower wall is to get up to the ledge. You've got a set of rings at, what, 20+ metres and another set of rings 3 or 4 metres below in the middle of nowhere? Are you telling me that this a class bit of climbing?

> I was no being deliberately provocative - but I can see your point. The super easy section where my route crosses Sweet Dreams is very runout - I didn't want any of my new bolts to be anywhere near Sweet Dreams. I say repeat the route and get back to me about it.

On 15/04/2013 Nick Clow wrote:>So, Bundy, tell me, when you bolted the crack at the start of '43' you>weren't thinking to yourself that it would be a big f@ck you to Macciza?

> The only reason Macca claimed it as a "trad" line is because he learnt that I was going to bolt it. If it was a trad or even a possible aid line (different from solo) Im sure that Ewbank would have tried it or aided it as he did with other climbs in the area (Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down)

On 15/04/2013 Nick Clow wrote:>No, I haven't because I exercise some degree of discrimination and taste>about what I climb. If I can see something is a non- or compromised line>or aesthetically-challenged, then I don't climb it. I wish bolters would>exercise similar discrimination before bolting 'routes'. The logical problem>on that lower wall is to get up to the ledge. You've got a set of rings>at, what, 20+ metres and another set of rings 3 or 4 metres below? Are>you telling me that this a class bit of climbing?

Your loss mate. There have been a lot of climbers who have repeated these 'flawed' routes and enjoyed them - even ODH! Certainly Giles and a whole stack of other locals have a spent many days down there and I heard nothing but positive feedback directly from them.

On 15/04/2013 BundyBear wrote:>On 15/04/2013 Nick Clow wrote:>>So, Bundy, tell me, when you bolted the crack at the start of '43' you>>weren't thinking to yourself that it would be a big f@ck you to Macciza?>>The only reason Macca claimed it as a "trad" line is because he learnt>that I was going to bolt it. If it was a trad or even a possible aid line>(different from solo) Im sure that Ewbank would have tried it or aided>it as he did with other climbs in the area (Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down)>

Up to and through the roof showed no evidence of having been seriously attempted or that it was being contemplated ( you guys had bolted down there for over two years) when I tried it . . .
After I announced that I was trying it various people made other claims that they had either abandoned it, or were 'about' to bolt it , and then despite me having not abandoned it, you decided to ringbolt it . . .

And yes, it goes as trad, and as aid (aid-solo no different), but I don't think John would necessarily have done it at the time he was climbing there, though he may have warmed up on the start, possibly . .

The buttress to the left of Hells Bells with the crack that I had cleaned up certainly goes on trad and so I don't understand why you bolted that either - Though maybe that is why, it's now an introductory trad route for sport climbers . . .

> Your loss mate. There have been a lot of climbers who have repeated these 'flawed' routes and enjoyed them - even ODH! Certainly Giles and a whole stack of other locals have a spent many days down there and I heard nothing but positive feedback directly from them.

I'll cope.

And I freely admit that I've had a good time climbing at Sublime Point and done some good routes of yours. Good sport routes, location, softish grades - I'm sure it is and will be very popular. That doesn't change my thoughts on the Bentrovarto Wall routes or the sport route on SD Wall.

Getting back to the real point of this thread:

Bolting the crack part of that route and banning Macciza from Safer Cliffs.

On 15/04/2013 nmonteith wrote:>Your loss mate. There have been a lot of climbers who have repeated these>'flawed' routes and enjoyed them - even ODH!

Yeah, I forget exactly which ones we did. There was an orange 22 starting off a tree which was good, a 25 which was a pikers link between two projects, the climbing was nice even though I'm not a huge fan of coordinate climbing (see Slider Wall).

Not the best sport crag in the Blueys by a long way, but some worthwhile routes for sure. A couple of the routes had been seriously undercleaned and needed a proper going over with hammer and glue. One of my pet hates is developers dropping the old "it'll clean up with traffic" to cover for their laziness!

On 12/04/2013 Macciza wrote:>And if you happen to have access to Matt Brooks facelessbook page you>can check out some more recent commentary there, though I have not been>able to respond to any of the accusations...
*snip*>if Matt responds to my 'Friend' request . . .

On 15/04/2013 Nick Clow wrote:>On 15/04/2013 Nick Clow wrote:>>So, Bundy, tell me, when you bolted the crack at the start of '43' you>>weren't thinking to yourself that it would be a big f@ck you to Macciza?

>You're not answering the question Bundy.

Still not answering the question . . .
You knew the section at the bottom that you bolted ie first 4 or 5 bolts was the line I was trying. It is protectable by trad and had been climbed as such before you ringbolted it . . .